B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?

Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

The version in the unbound bible is not Modern Greek. It is the Βάμβας or the Katharevousa version from the 19th century. I know people have discussed it here in the past. IMHO, painful to the eyes. I’ll see if I hear back from Biola. sword-feedback@crosswire.org

Dean_Poulos wrote:[...]The version in the unbound bible is not Modern Greek. It is the Βάμβας or the Katharevousa version from the 19th century. I know people have discussed it here in the past. IMHO, painful to the eyes. I’ll see if I hear back from Biola. sword-feedback@crosswire.org[...]

Really sorry I didn't know what it called "Modern Greek" wasn't And I didn't check before I posted!

Dean_Poulos wrote:The modern irregular verbs είμαι (I am) and I may as well add, έχω (I have), carry only a single past tense, there is no imperfect and past tenses.

Καί Θεός ήταν ὁ Λόγος.

είμαι (I am) conjugated in the past tense.

ήμουν ήμαστεήσουν ήσαστεήταν ήταν

The above would be the correct modern rendering.

3rd PS and 3 PP are the same in modern.[...]

Same here. Sorry to all. Also, I believe the one on CCEL that George also found is the exact same one that is hosted on the Unbound Bible. So that one also has the wrong name.

There is not one even one (tautological alert) jot or tittle of a reason for any apology. Your contributions to things I have learned “lurking” and everyone else’s on B-Greek far outweigh any I have made.

Further, this thread sent me on a fishing expedition which yielded a number of rather interesting results.

First, there is no purely Modern Demotic online version I could track down, however, apparently after Greece made Demotic the official language in 1976, bibles were then officially sanctioned and legal. (Creepy)

The below is in the dative I assume. I can’t explain why, other than I know what it means, having heard people say it, despite never using it. I also only now realized where it came from. A carry-over from guess where?

εν ονόματι (in the name of)

εἰς τό ὄνομα τοῦ - That is how most people I know (including me) say (in the name of) in Modern. Yes, I realize it’s Koine and it’s possible it was drilled into my head and others who were forced into a Parochial Greek school for 12 years. : - ) Confusing, I know.

I found what I bellieve is a truly Demotic version online and my guess is Orthodox website probably sell them.

Not something I’ll be ordering any time soon; it would only set my Koine studies further back. However, I did find some odd stuff on Katharevousa. It’s also said Katharevousa was the result of diglossia and Atticism, which I don’t get, was that not 150-100 B.C.?

Why the Watchtower would release such a statement and some of the comments below it are puzzling.

While Katharevousa hurts [my] eyes, it has not created an indefinite article for John 1 or Titus 2:13 and my favorite abolitionist Mr. (article substantive καί substantive) Sharpe remains as a “Solid Rock.”

I suppose one could say (if they clung to a self-refuting strict evidentialist epistemology) that was Modern.

However, since the website has their source code locked and it would take me some time to download all the code to simply be able to copy/paste their self-created John 1.1, I’ll simply say, while one may call it Modern Demotic, it also has many [not only John 1.1] typos and grammatical errors and those errors seem to be <b>focused<b>

Also, their direct links are self-corrupting, unless you can fix them and I’m uncertain if my syntax will work here, but I’ll give it a shot. They take you to the beginning (I can't imagine why).

Starting with my above broken code link “In the beginning was the word and the word was ***with with***.

I should have stopped there, however I’m glad I examined it a bit further. To be unbiased, let’s just say in my view the Watchtower Scholars made errors.

Since I can’t copy paste (what they typed in Greek letters) without first downloading all their code, putting it in Adobe Dreamweaver and conducting a check, I’ll retype it except not not using their Greek letters:

Dean, your comments go right to the heart of John's question as to whether or not there is translational equivalency in the Greek rendering of John 1:1c of the NWT with the Koine. You seem to see the fronting of ο λόγος as significant to the understanding of the Demotic. Do I understand you correctly?

John Brainard has presented θεός ήταν ο λόγος and θεὸς ἧν ὀ λόγος as being translationally equivalent but then goes on to muddy the waters by referring to the NWT which in fact has the reverse order - ο Λόγος ήταν θεός. Does Demotic really make the distinction that the anarthrous predicate noun's placement makes such a large difference?

Dean_Poulos wrote:Starting with my above broken code link “In the beginning was the word and the word was ***with with***.

Dean, You indicate that μαζί με as a translation for πρὸς is poor Demotic and I hesitate to dispute it with you but I do note that the NWT uses the same construction at 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to translate ἄμα σὺν which is pleonastic. As has been pointed out before a pleonasm may give more precision. A quick search of μαζί με on Google turns up immediate results which may indicate that it is not too unusual a construction in Demotic. http://mazimetapaidiamou.blogspot.com/ ΜΑΖΙ ΜΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΙΔΙΑ ΜΟΥ....I do admit that, at first blush, it does seem to validate your observation that ***with with*** does not fit well as a translation of the more concise πρός.

Now you know how Clint feels each day and Hitch as well; before he passed away.

Enough of my misplaced jokes. I'm glad you found that blog and I will address it.

Sooo....you are indeed saying that the translators of the NWT in Greek stuttered and made errors in "Modern Demotic" or Romaic. Yes?

In all seriousness, while the stutter comment was lighthearted, to clarify; it is simply wrong based on all texts. (Howwever, the Blog is an excellent find) Technically, while it may be classified as a redundancy or grammatical tautology such as (He kept it from his friends that he was a keeping a secret) or (He kept it from his friends that he was a secret drinker), there is more going on.

When you read the text above you know it is bad English. When I read the JWV or NWV it’s more than bad Greek. There is an agenda. I’ll explain and provide another clear example.

MAZI ME = with with and the blog. The Watchtower would argue they are simply trying to emphasize God was [together with] Jesus at the beginning (puzzling in and of itself). However, that does not work in Modern Greek to stand true to the original text.

By rendering MAZI ME as (together with) this intentionally diminishes the Godhead. To say Jesus was [together with] God tells a Greek reader that a relationship exists which is no different than two friends who happen to be at a movie together (The Blog).

A personal example that would annoy my wife: I’m talking on the phone to a friend and say:

είμαι [μαζί με] τήν γυναίκα μοῦ

Once I hung up the phone, I’d be met with a cross look (no dinner) and something to the effect of: (Did you tell Nick you were with me or the dog?)

I would immediately know she caught my careless and very, very bad Greek, with respect to my wife.

I mentioned it is not only John 1.1. I used 1 Cor 13.1 as an example, however, here is a much more critical one and I think a pattern will become clear.

John 10:30

ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.

The Father and I are one.

I’m now out of my comfort zone, being a beginner grammatically with respect to Koine, so I’ll be asking:

With ἐσμεν being (I think) the FPP indicative, I am now guessing it could be rendered: The Father and I are one essence. Yes? No?

If so, then does “the Word was with God” have the same force??? (aspect???) as I read I John 10:30?

By that I am trying to say that simply reading the words come through to me as one essence, not two persons, not in John 1.1.

The JWV works hard to break this essence apart; it’s all over the place in John.

Back to my comfort area with the added example and a glaring one at that.

John 10.30 is rendered thus and called modern.

Εγώ καί ὁ Πατέρας είμαστε ἔνα.

eίμαστε = 1PP

I and the Father (we are) one. Yes, as is my naval and the universe we are also one.

The pattern is consistant is attempting to break up the oneness as well as the distinct personhood of the Trinity.

You indicate that μαζί με as a translation for πρὸς is poor Demotic and I hesitate to dispute it with you but I do note that the NWT uses the same construction at 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to translate ἄμα σὺν which is pleonastic.

If by pleonastic you mean a redundant, tautology, e.g., burning fire, and not an idiomatic tautology, I would agree. If not, you're way over my head at this point.

Dean, your comments go right to the heart of John's question as to whether or not there is translational equivalency in the Greek rendering of John 1:1c of the NWT with the Koine. You seem to see the fronting of ο λόγος as significant to the understanding of the Demotic. Do I understand you correctly?

Yes, as alluded to above.

John Brainard has presented θεός ήταν ο λόγος and θεὸς ἧν ὀ λόγος as being translationally equivalent but then goes on to muddy the waters by referring to the NWT which in fact has the reverse order - ο Λόγος ήταν θεός. Does Demotic really make the distinction that the anarthrous predicate noun's placement makes such a large difference?

Scott, I will need to have another look at what John said again tomorrow. I had initially thought he had mixed it in with the Katharevousa. If not, of course there is no difference with respect to a substantive without a direct article. There is no indirect article in modern Greek or Koine Greek. I'm assuming this is what you're asking, correct? (here I am out of the comfort zone again)

It may hurt my eyes, but if ήτο is 3PS and if παρά which in modern means above or over, but in Koine means more than (once again, I’m treading in muddy waters) BDAG which renders παρά as a: “marker of extension from the side of, from (the side of) w. local sense preserved, used w. verbs of coming, going, sending, originating, going out, etc.” then perhaps it is correct, however, I still don't get it and never heard ήτο.

Perhaps I need to go further into BDAG, however, I’ll need to refrain at this point, since pointing out John 1 has nothing to do with who I may believe Proceeds (going out) from the Father and who I may believe is Given by the Son is a clear violation of b-Greek policy, no?

Besides, Greeks who become Baptists should not be discussing issues such as the Filioque. :